Friday, September 19, 2008

I just got back home from the McCain-Palin Rally at the Anoka County Airport.

The public address system sucked.

I was halfway down the very large hangar at the north end of the airport (someone could really play football in there) and about half the time it sounded like SP and JSM were blessing the cheese makers.

It would have really helped to have another set of loudspeakers about halfway down the hangar.

Also a woman fainted about ten feet away from me when JSM and SP arrived.

Update at 1815 hrs.

According to the TSA (they ran the security checkpoints) there were over 13,000 people at the rally. The photo above doesn't do justice to the crowd.

Monday:"I'm going to rape and pillage today just for the heck of it because, gosh darn it, I deserve to have a good time."

Tuesday:"I am not a fraud, a thief yes, but not a fraud."

Wednesday:"I deserve all the loot and booty I can carry without feeling ashamed or being grandiose."

Thursday:"I will express my feelings today. I will not hide them behind my eyepatch. My eyepatch is not a mask for my feelings, but rather a small swatch of leather that covers a hideous scar."

Friday:"When I overtake that merchants vessel, I will not be playing those parent tapes in my head: "You wield a cutlass like a girl" . . . "Why can't you be more like Blackbeard's son?" . . . "Philosophy? What kind of major is that? It's useless!"

Saturday:"Just because I indulge in wine and wenches does not mean I'm an alcoholic sex-addict like my father."

Sunday:"If I must violently put down a mutiny today, it is not because I am a bad person or that I am not worthy of love; it is because my crew are a bunch of yellow-bellied, lily-livered sons-of-whores--and I am mean enough, ruthless enough, and dog gone it, people fear me."

Thursday, September 18, 2008

"why does their have to be dead bodies on the road to peace? is not there a better way?"

In answer to the question, no.

Because some individuals and groups won't accept a negative answer to a demand for submission. The example of Lenin screaming for the death of the Kulaks, Russian peasants who refused to be slaves of the collective, readily comes to mind.

Most of the time they don't even bother to ask. They will simply go straight to violence to enforce their will upon others.

As I have written before those who are dependent on a subject population for their survival and well being cannot exist in the society of consent. They must resort to force against those who refuse to submit. They have no choice in the matter, and thus we have no choice but to use force upon them.

Those who only allow you the options of submission or death, for example Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, are nothing more than vermin fit solely for extermination._

Monday, September 15, 2008

﻿For those of you who spent the last five years in some godforsaken hellhole working to fulfill your part of the Five Year Plan the self-proclaimed comedian Al Franken is running against Norm Coleman for a seat in the United States Senate on behalf of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota. (Yes, it is as bad as it sounds.) So in order to provide Comrade Franken with an actual example of comedy I present:

Stuart Smalley's Daily Affirmations for the Inner Communist

Monday:

"I'm going to execute and expropriate today just for the heck of it because, gosh darn it, I deserve to have a good time."

Tuesday:

"I am not a fraud, a Marxist yes, but not a fraud."

Wednesday:

"I deserve all the mass adulation from the people I can get without feeling ashamed or being grandiose."

Thursday:

"I will express my feelings today. I will not hide them behind my mustache. My mustache is not a mask for my feelings, but rather a small patch of facial hair that covers my inadequacies."

Friday:

"When I rob a bank for the cause, I will not be playing those parent tapes in my head: "You wield a revolver like a girl" . . . "Why can't you be more like Stalin?" . . . "Philosophy? What kind of major is that? It's useless!"

Saturday:

"Just because I execute Christians and counter-revolutionaries does not mean I'm an mass-murdering psychopath like my father."

Sunday:

"If I must violently put down a counter-revolution today, it is not because I am a bad person or that I am not worthy of love; it is because my people are a bunch of religion-addicted capitalist sons-of-bitches--and I am mean enough, ruthless enough, and dog gone it, people fear me."__

Saturday, September 13, 2008

There are those who believe that the path to power goes over the dead bodies of the innocent. On the other hand I believe that the path to peace leads over the dead bodies of those on the path to power._

Friday, September 12, 2008

Ah, point of order, but it was popularly supported by the majority of voters, wasn't it?

I mean, that's how constitutional amendments normally get passed.

Does that mean that ALL laws and constitutional amendments are "forcibly imposed"?

Does that also mean that those same SASBs forcibly imposed the right of women to vote?

And similar SASBs imposed the direct election of senators, and the abolition of slavery?

I responded:

Government is force. When such force is used to protect Life Liberty, and Property it is necessary and good. When such force is used to treat other persons as if they were subhuman animals then it is destructive of Human Life and is therefore an evil.

The nature of Human Life defines the moral conditions under which Human beings must live. No act of legislation or majority vote can overturn a law of nature. Any attempt to do so is a futile and destructive act.

We in the United States were somewhat fortunate in that we got Prohibition and the New Deal while Europe and Russia were turned into totalitarian slaughterhouses.

And Dan, please try to get your facts straight. Chattel slavery was practiced by Superior Beings. It was the ordinary and decent people who went to war to end the practice of slavery.

Wait, wait. You boycott a hobby shop because it snarks on both the RNC and the protesters outside.

Then you turn around and write *this*?

That seems like something of a double standard on political discourse.

What double standard?

I cannot and will not stop anyone from advocating slavery and murder. But if anyone actually tries to practice slavery and murder then I will do everything in my power to stop them. Permanently.

I immediately replied thus:

Dan, it has been my experience that arguing with morons is an act of futility. But I will answer you this one last time.

I will not do business with those who insist on insulting me. This is a voluntary act of a private citizen that in no way violates any actual rights of anyone. Don and his crew at Uncle Hugo's can whine, moan, and groan all they want about the our continued refusal to drink the Kool-Aid. I will do nothing to stop them. And I simply will not do any further business with them.

Censorship is an exercise of state power carried out with the credible threat of deadly force. Censorship is an act that reduces Human Beings to the effective status of livestock.

If you cannot discern a difference between a private act that violates no one's actual rights and an act of forcible subjugation by a state then you sir are a fucking moron and I will waste no further effort in responding to you.

In a free country one may eject a obnoxious lout from their own home or place of business.

And unlike Comrade Stalin, I don't have an army of trench-coated goons to send out and murder those I disagree with. There is a VERY DISTINCT difference between the power of the state and the rights of the private citizen. Learn to live with it.

Furthermore, comparing someone to the bloodiest murderer of the 20th Century and calling that person a traitor and an enemy of freedom are gross insults and I am under no moral obligation to tolerate such on my weblog. Anyone who doesn't like that is free to whine about it on their own weblog.

I stand for INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, which is the right of the individual person to control their own life and property, and as such this includes the right to refuse contact with those the individual disagrees with or otherwise finds obnoxious. Tyranny is when such refusals are answered with physical force.

I have said before and will continue to say that those have or who seek to establish tyranny are toxic to human life, and I have absolutely no ethical objections to dealing with them as such.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Ms. Fell, your sneer is a clear indication that you may be part of the problem. Positive confirmation of this would of course require further observation and research for which I neither the time, patience, nor a research grant to perform. That would be a task that is ideally suited to an actual intellectual. As you may have noticed I did not condemn all intellectuals in my rant, I only condemned the false ones.

Intellectuals actually can be useful when they are honest or when they are actually paying attention to objective reality. The problem arises when someone assumes the position of authority in order to scam their way to survival and well being, or to further an adverse ideological agenda. But since there is only one reality, which is commonly perceived by all individuals, the fraud is ultimately discovered. But all too often the disclosure occurs after innocent lives are lost.

One of the obvious indications that one is a false intellectual is their apparent blindness to the distinction between the states of civilization and barbarism. The State of civilization is not only the collection of structures that people live and work in, and the tools that they use, it is also the moral condition that they live in. The foundation of the social order has a clear impact on the survival and well being of the the people who live in it.

In the state of civilization consent is the preferred basis of social, economic, and political relationships, and force is reserved as a response to the violent predatory behavior from such persons as common criminals and Communists. The barbaric social paradigm is dominated by those persons who, by tribal membership or by adherence to an ideology*, assume the role of a superior being that forcibly uses other people as a means to assure their own survival and well being.

Obviously not all civilizations are perfect, which is clearly demonstrated by the Self Appointed Superior Beings who forcibly imposed the Prohibition of alcohol on the United States in the earth Twentieth Century.

To be able to see the distinction between civilization and barbarism and act on it does have an impact on the survival and well being of a person, as in the individual case of Ayn Rand, and it thus is a moral necessity.

Anyone who cannot see, refuses to see, or who actively obliterates, the distinction between civilization and barbarism in their work is either not doing their job properly or is part of the problem, and in either case has absolutely zero claim to being an intellectual. Though that doesn't stop them from trying.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

I once brought up the subject of an armed uprising against a tyrannical state during the question and answer session after an Objectivist lecture. The lecturer (who I will refrain from naming to save him from further embarrassment) said, "we can't do that, we'll all be killed."

The fact of the matter is everyone dies. I would rather die as a free man standing up for my rights and Humanity in General than to be worked to death as a slave of Communist filth like Barack Obama.

Monday, September 01, 2008

They deny us the right to peacefully gather to work out rational solutions to political issues. They demand that we surrender ourselves and our children to them to be used as livestock in their slave labor regime. They commit acts of violence against those who refuse to submit to their depraved will.